Font Size: a A A

A Novel Application of Machine Learning Methods to Model Microcontroller Upset Due to Intentional Electromagnetic Interferenc

Posted on:2018-06-23Degree:Ph.DType:Dissertation
University:The University of New MexicoCandidate:Bilalic, RusmirFull Text:PDF
GTID:1478390020456395Subject:Electromagnetics
Abstract/Summary:
A novel application of support vector machines (SVMs), artificial neural networks (ANNs), and Gaussian processes (GPs) for machine learning (GPML) to model microcontroller unit (MCU) upset due to intentional electromagnetic interference (IEMI) is presented. In this approach, an MCU performs a counting operation (0-7) while electromagnetic interference in the form of a radio frequency (RF) pulse is direct-injected into the MCU clock line. Injection times with respect to the clock signal are the clock low, clock rising edge, clock high, and the clock falling edge periods in the clock window during which the MCU is performing initialization and executing the counting procedure. The intent is to cause disruption in the counting operation and model the probability of effect (PoE) using machine learning tools. Five experiments were executed as part of this research, each of which contained a set of 38,300 training points and 38,300 test points, for a total of 383,000 total points with the following experiment variables: injection times with respect to the clock signal, injected RF power, injected RF pulse width, and injected RF frequency. For the 191,500 training points, the average training error was 12.47%, while for the 191,500 test points the average test error was 14.85%, meaning that on average, the machine was able to predict MCU upset with an 85.15% accuracy. Leaving out the results for the worst-performing model (SVM with a linear kernel), the test prediction accuracy for the remaining machines is almost 89%. All three machine learning methods (ANNs, SVMs, and GPML) showed excellent and consistent results in their ability to model and predict the PoE on an MCU due to IEMI. The GP approach performed best during training with a 7.43% average training error, while the ANN technique was most accurate during the test with a 10.80% error.
Keywords/Search Tags:Machine learning, Model, Injected RF, MCU, Training, Test, Upset, Due
Related items